John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, today the Senate will once again consider the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation passed the House last week in an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 370 to 58. I hope we will have a similarly resounding vote here today. Today's vote would not be possible without the hard work of Chairman Mac Thornberry, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. It has been a privilege to work alongside him and the gentleman from Washington, Congressman Smith, to produce a defense authorization bill worthy of the troops it supports. I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Reed, for his dedicated work on this legislation and his many substantive contributions that made this a better bill. I thank the majority leader, Senator McConnell, for bringing this legislation to the floor today and for his commitment throughout this process to ensuring we give our military the certainty they need to plan and execute their missions. For 53 consecutive years, Congress has passed the National Defense Authorization Act. That is a testament to the vital importance of this legislation, which provides the authorities and support necessary for our military to defend the Nation. But perhaps at no time in the last half century has this legislation been so critical. Our Nation confronts the most diverse and complex array of crises since the end of World War II--the rampage of ISIL's terrorist army, Iran's malign activities across the Middle East, Russia's invasion of Ukraine and bloody intervention in Syria, China's continued pattern of assertive behavior toward its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific, and the list goes on, including what appears to be the recent bombing of an airliner over Egypt which apparently caused the loss of 244 lives, apparently an act of terror of monumental consequences. Rising to the challenges of an increasingly dangerous world requires bold reforms to national defense, and that is what this legislation delivers. The legislation is a reform bill. This legislation delivers the most sweeping reforms to our defense acquisition system in a generation. The NDAA modernizes a 70-year-old military retirement system and extends benefits to hundreds of thousands of servicemembers previously excluded under the old system. The legislation also makes significant reforms to Pentagon headquarters and management to ensure that precious defense resources are focused on our warfighters rather than bloated staffs. The bill identifies $11 billion in excessive and unnecessary spending from that request and reinvests those savings in critical national security priorities, including more fighter aircraft, accelerated shipbuilding, strengthening our cyber defenses, and $300 million in vital assistance to Ukraine to resist Russian aggression. We did all of this while upholding our commitments to our servicemembers, retirees, and their families. The NDAA reauthorizes over 30 special pays and bonuses, makes military health care more portable, increases access to urgent care facilities, strengthens sexual assault prevention and response, and knocks down bureaucratic obstacles to ensure servicemembers maintain access to the medicines they need as they transition from Active Duty. Finally, the legislation before us recognizes that a strong national defense requires supporting our friends and allies and responding to common threats. With Vladimir Putin on the march, the NDAA includes $300 million to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression, including $50 million for lethal assistance and counter-artillery radars. As China continues its aggressive behavior in the South China Sea, the NDAA will provide $50 million to assist and train our allies in the region to increase maritime security and the maritime domain awareness. As the Taliban mounts an offensive across Afghanistan, the NDAA authorizes $3.8 billion for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund to preserve the gains of the past decade and continue to degrade and defeat terrorists who want to attack the United States and our allies. This is an ambitious piece of legislation, but in the times we live, we cannot afford business as usual in the Department of Defense. To prepare our military to confront our present and future national security challenges, we must champion the cause of defense reform, rigorously root out Pentagon waste, and invest in modernization and next-generation technologies to maintain our military technological advantage. That is what this legislation is all about. Additionally, I would point out that as our citizenry and our voters are deeply frustrated and angry about our failure to get anything done here in the Congress of the United States, I would at least make the comment that our highest priority and responsibility is defending the Nation. I believe this legislation is an example of working not only on both sides of the aisle but on both sides of the Capitol. I would argue that this is the most significant reform legislation that has been passed in 30 years, but I would also tell my colleagues that this is just the beginning. This is the beginning of a bipartisan effort to reform the Pentagon, to reform the way we do business, to reform our priorities, and to reform the way the Pentagon was structured and our defense was structured. The last time it was reformed was 30 years ago under legislation called Goldwater-Nichols. Obviously, in the last 30 years that world situation has changed dramatically--dramatically. On a bipartisan basis, working across the aisle and across the Capitol, I can assure my colleagues that next year at about this time, they will be seeing legislation that will try to address the challenges we are now facing in the world--in a more chaotic world than we have seen since the end of World War II. That is not just John McCain's opinion; that is the opinion of every knowledgeable, respected national security expert, ranging from Henry Kissinger, to Madeleine Albright, to Zbigniew Brzezinski, to Brent Scowcroft and others. We have to have a reformed Pentagon to meet the challenges. One great example of that is cyber security. Thirty years ago there were no cyber attacks on the United States of America. Today it is one of the looming challenges we face. I intend to carry on in the long tradition of this committee in which the Senator from Rhode Island and I have worked in partnership in addressing these new challenges and these grave challenges to America's security. I am proud of this legislation. Could we have done more? Yes. Were there different areas to which perhaps we should have paid more attention? Perhaps. But I would argue that this is the most significant reform legislation in the last 30 years. I thank my friend and colleague from Rhode Island. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2796.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Which is?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now considering the MILCON-VA appropriations bill. Obviously, anything we do for our veterans is something that is laudable to all of us, but earlier a very interesting vote took place in the U.S. Senate, when the Department of Defense appropriations bill which funds the appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, et cetera--in other words, the Defense appropriations bill which provides for the training, the equipment, the pay, the medical care, all of those vital necessities for the men and women who are serving in the military--a sufficient number of my colleagues, I believe all but one on the other side of the aisle, decided to vote against moving to that legislation. I want the record to be clear, all but one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, as I understand it, voted against moving to the legislation which provides the funding for the defense of this Nation and the men and women who serve it--items that are vitally important to the men and women who are serving, items such as military personnel. The committee recommends $3 billion for pay allowances and other personnel costs for Active Reserve and Guard troops activated for duty in Afghanistan and other contingencies, counterterrorism partnership funds, a money provision that recommends $300 million for the Ukrainians who are now being dismantled by Vladimir Putin. The committee, as I mentioned, recommends money for pay allowances and other personnel costs for Active, Reserve, and Guard troops activated for duty in Afghanistan and other contingency operations. The recommendation includes funding for subsistence, permanent change of station, travel, and special pays, including imminent danger pay, family separation allowance, and hardship duty pay. I will have some other selections, but I think the American people ought to know what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just voted against. They voted against paying allowances and personnel costs for the Active, Reserve, and Guard troops activated for duty in Afghanistan, including funding for subsistence, permanent change of station, travel, and special pays, including imminent danger pay. We won't fund the men and women serving in imminent danger. We decided not to fund them. That is amazing--truly amazing. One of the programs in here is the Counterterrorism Partnership Fund. There is item after item listed here. These appropriations are for the men and women in the armed services. These appropriations include their pay, their benefits, their weapons, and their means to carry out their duties in dangerous times. Other programs in here include countering violent extremism online, the European Reassurance Initiative, and, as I mentioned, Ukraine and counterterrorism. All of these provisions are contained in probably what is the most important obligation that we have. I don't know of a greater obligation that we have to the American people and the security of the Nation. If there is any doubt about what is going on in the world, one might just want to look back at what happened in the last couple of days--the loss of a Russian airliner under very suspicious circumstances, the continued pouring of weapons and capabilities into Syria by the Russians and Iranians, and the continued gains made by ISIS in many parts of the world, including even as far away as parts of Africa and Afghanistan. Do any of my colleagues know of the strategy that the United States has to address these issues? They can't because there is none. But here we are doing our duty--our constitutional obligation--to provide for the men and women who are serving and defending this Nation. And for obscure reasons--perhaps the Democrats, my colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle, will come to the floor and explain why they would not go to a piece of legislation that protects this Nation and the men and women who serve it. I am sure that in about 6 days--I believe it is--on November 11, Veterans Day, every one of my colleagues, like me, will go and be part of the celebration of the men and women who served and sacrificed. What do you have to say about the men and women who are now serving? What you just did was to vote to not fund, train, equip, and defend these men and women, and without this, their lives are in greater danger. So don't go back and say that you are doing everything you can to defend this Nation. You are not. Right now we have a very turbulent political situation in America. We have people who are now leading in the polls and perhaps have never held public office. The approval rating of Congress is at 12 percent or lower, and sometimes I hear some of my colleagues wonder why we are held in such low esteem. If we can't even fund the men and women in the military and take care of their needs, who in the world will we take care of? I believe the Republican leader voted in a way so that we can reconsider the vote. We need to reconsider the vote. We need to vote, and we need to be on record that we have done our barest of duties--our fundamental duty as elected officials, which is to ensure the security of this Nation. Right now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who voted not to move forward with this legislation have a lot of explaining to do on Veterans Day--a lot of explaining to do as to why they wouldn't take up the legislation that takes care of their change of station, their pay, their benefits, and takes care of their health care. It is all in this legislation, and yet my colleagues, for reasons which I do not understand, did not vote to take up this legislation. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: Where are your priorities? Where are they? Is it somehow to gridlock this legislation because you want a certain piece of legislation brought up instead of this one? Is it for some other obscure reason or is it because you don't give a damn? This is an embarrassing time for me in this body, when we have enough Senators to prevent us from taking up what are our barest minimal requirements of our obligations, which are to provide for the defense of this Nation and the men and women who serve it. It is foolish, cynical, and dangerous to hold defense legislation hostage until every one of their political demands is met simply because of that. Veterans Day is 1 week away. I urge my Democratic colleagues to stop treating our national defense as a tool for extracting political leverage. Let's return to the bipartisan tradition of providing for the common defense. That is what the men and women serving in the military deserve and require from us, it is what Americans expect from us, and it is what the Constitution demands of us. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the business before the Senate?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I was pleased to vote today in support of S.J. Res. 22, which would nullify the Environmental Protection Agency's recently finalized clean water rule. Just yesterday, I voted in support of a bipartisan bill, S. 1140, authored by my colleague, Senator John Barrasso, which would have forced EPA to pull the rule. Unfortunately, that bill did not receive the 60 votes necessary under Senate rules that are needed to pass. The resolution passed by the Senate today is supported by hundreds of national and local organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Homebuilders Association, to name a few. While I understand that the White House has threatened to veto this resolution if it reaches the President's desk, it is still important that a majority of Congress voice their opposition to the EPA rule as Federal courts continue to weigh its legality. Americans around the Nation are lining up against the EPA clean water rule because of its economic cost, the regulatory impact, and the uncertainty it engenders among State and local governments, businesses, and consumer alike. The rule itself bypassed Congress by redefining the types of water bodies under the Clean Water Act that EPA has the authority to regulate. EPA pushed forward without regard for State and local environmental protection laws, which is partly why about a dozen State attorneys general, including from my home State of Arizona, have won injunctions in Federal court against the EPA rule. The EPA claims that the rule only allows the Agency to halt activities that disturb small, environmentally sensitive streams and wetlands. But when you dive into the rule's lengthy publication, you will find that EPA is proposing to expand its jurisdiction over roughly 60 percent of all waters of the United States and can also capture certain irrigation ditches, stock ponds, and even dry desert washes. Farmers, housing, construction jobs, and other activities will all suddenly find themselves under the thumb of EPA bureaucrats. The EPA will claim it has written waivers into the rule for these industries, but there is growing consensus that the waivers are so unclear and conflicting that nobody believes they hold any water. The EPA's rulemaking process itself was so closed off from outside input and peer-reviewed science that it is clear to any reasonable observer that EPA had misjudged the economic damage their rule will inflict on small business, farms, and local governments around the country. The EPA rule is especially bad news for Arizona agriculture and homebuilding sectors which, combined, account for most of all economic activity in my State. If a farmer wants to build or repair a canal, the EPA rule could block it. A community that wants to build a school or a church near a dry wash will have to beg EPA for a permit. Under the rule, the EPA can even fine a private property owners tens of thousands of dollars if the Agency thinks water historically flowed across their land even when there is no visible evidence. Regardless whether or not the President vetoes this resolution, I will continue to oppose the EPA clean water rule. I am a proud cosponsor of Senator Jeff Flake's similar bill, S. 1179, the Defending Rivers from Overreaching Policies Act, DROP Act, which would direct the EPA to pull its rule over its poor, nonscientific definition of ``navigable'' water bodies. We will continue to push forward with this and other legislative initiatives and will watch closely to see how the courts handle the EPA rule.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. We sent these letters to the Veterans' Administration and to the Department of Education requesting that they notify us if further action is taken against the university. We sent these letters because we feel that the Department of Defense's decision and threats of termination of participation by the University of Phoenix in this program were done simply because the Senator from Illinois sent a letter to the Department of Defense highlighting an outside investigative report--an outside investigative report--suggesting wrongdoing on the part of the University of Phoenix. Let's be clear again. There was no due process here. That is what I want--due process. If the University of Phoenix is guilty of some wrongdoing, I want to be one of the first to make sure the proper penalties are enacted. I do not--I repeat--I do not believe that on the basis of a single investigative report, that action should be taken. With this in mind, I was stunned to hear once again that the Senator from Illinois is insisting that the DOD not reverse its decision. Given his own involvement in the matter, his suggestion that the DOD not reverse its decision just because Members of this body conveyed concern about the merits of its probationary decision and the fundamentally unfair way that the DOD made it is, in fact, ridiculous. The whole matter arose from the Senator from Illinois pressuring the DOD to take adverse action against the university. His case was based not on an affirmative finding by the Department that the university engaged in any newly identified acts of substantial misconduct but a report by an outside investigative group. He then sent letters to the Department of Education and Department of Veterans Affairs asking for similar action. After further review of the DOD's decision, it is my opinion that, No. 1, it relies on overly technical violations of a memorandum of understanding that the university signed with the Department of Defense regarding its participation in the Tuition Assistance Program; No. 2, it fails to reflect the actions the university has taken to correct and identify violations; and No. 3, it is based in part on unsubstantiated allegations associated with inquiries for information by other agencies, not findings of new violations. In other words, with our letter, we asked Secretary Carter to review a lower level decision to put the university on probation where even the DOD conceded, in its very letter to the university announcing its decision, that ``the University of Phoenix has responded to infractions with appropriate corrective action at this time.'' With respect to the university's proposed violations of DOD policies on the use of official seals or other trademark insignia with ``challenge coins,'' we understand the university has remedied this infraction. But it is worth noting that traditional public or nonprofit universities, including Southern Illinois University, utilize similar challenge coins with impunity. I remain skeptical that the DOD is evenly and uniformly enforcing its policies on all institutions of higher education and appears to be unfairly singling out certain institutions of higher education based on a letter from the Senator from Illinois. With respect to the university's apparent failure to obtain specific approval for conducting partnership activities at several military installations, it is our understanding that the university obtained approval from the respective base leadership to sponsor, sometimes at their request, partnership events. While the university may have technically violated the MOU's requirement that the university coordinate with the education services officer, those who have served in the military readily understand and respect the chain of command. Approval from the base leadership should be sufficient to meet the requirements of the MOU regardless of the education service officer's involvement. By the way, the education service officer did not turn this down; they just were not consulted. In the absence of significant, substantiated findings regarding new, uncorrected violations, the Department of Defense decided to suspend the university from participating in the Tuition Assistance Program based on document requests by two government agencies that are not, in fact, the Department of Defense and does not indicate a violation or admittance of guilt. We call on our service men and women to serve and protect our interests, often at great cost to themselves and their families. Yet the Senator from Illinois suggests that they are not capable of choosing their own path when determining their postsecondary educational needs. By the way, on a technical violation of the budget agreement, the Senator from Illinois was one of the leaders in voting against the Defense authorization bill, which was the result of many years of work. In all cases, opinions should absolutely not be used to essentially target a valued member of Arizona's education community. The University of Phoenix has a long history of serving nontraditional students, such as Active-Duty military and others who tend to delay enrollment after high school, work full time, have dependents, or are single parents for whom traditional university schooling is unavailable. The University of Phoenix has graduated more than 80,000 military and veteran students with postsecondary degrees. A recent Wall Street Journal article I quoted--and contrary to the preference of this administration, and for the sake of our servicemembers who earned and rely on this educational benefit, I promise I will not let this issue go. The State of Arizona is proud to have the University of Phoenix as a member of its higher education community. As the questions that I posted in this letter show, I will continue to look into this action based on the merits of DOD's decision, not ideological grandstanding. Recently, as a result of this, I received letters from three students who recently graduated from the University of Phoenix. Andrew Workman of North Carolina said: University of Phoenix allowed me to work 50 hours a week and pursue my degree at the same time. Ryan Zulkoski of Nebraska received his master's in nursing informatics in 2013. He said: I loved my experience and UOPX has opened so many doors for me. Jim Wallace of Florida said: I am a UOPX graduate, MBA 2006 and veteran of the US Navy Reserve. In my opinion UOPX led the way in educating working professionals. At the time I started my program, no other institutions offered the ability for me to successfully complete my studies, care for my family and work a demanding job. The bottom line is that it was challenging and I worked hard to complete my degree. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have these comments by graduates printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor for a very unusual reason this afternoon. It has to do with an attack on for-profit colleges by a longstanding campaign by certain groups and individuals who have been opposed to for-profit colleges. They were able to destroy one out in California, and they are continuing to attempt to make those attacks work on other for-profit colleges. This is a very unusual situation because what we are seeing take place are conclusions being drawn and action being taken--in this case by the Department of Defense--without due process, as a result of pressure exerted by a Member and Members of the Senate, which then has resulted in action without due process. Last week there was a very interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal entitled ``Obama's For-Profit Stealth Attack. The Pentagon punishes Phoenix on orders from Senate headquarters.'' Earlier this month the Defense Department cut off military tuition assistance to new students at the for-profit University of Phoenix, which enrolls about 9,300 servicemembers at its 105 campuses nationwide. Defense's reasons for discharging Phoenix are vague: A review ``in response to allegations published by the Center for Investigative Reporting'' in a June drive-by on the college found minor breaches in decorum. Let me emphasize that. I say to my colleagues, there was a story written by an outfit called the Center for Investigative Reporting--I don't know anything about them, and I am sure the Department of Defense does not. But as a result of an investigation by an outfit that none have ever heard of, then action was taken by the Department of Defense. It was not a Department investigation. There was no scrutiny. This is a remarkable case of the Senate exerting influence in a way which is, I think, almost unprecedented. To wit, Phoenix had distributed unauthorized ``challenge coins,'' which commonly denote tokens of recognition, with military insignia. Yet many non-military outfits including the University of Miami, Boeing and Intel-- And I would point out Southern Illinois University-- hand out such coins. It is not an uncommon practice to hand out coins. Phoenix's real offense, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting-- Remember, this has nothing to do with the Government of the United States-- is using the coin to ``imply military support'' for the college. My friends, at least 100 institutions in America give out challenge coins. I wonder if those institutions have committed grievous crime in the view of the CIR. Defense also censured Phoenix for failing to obtain approvals from the ``responsible education advisor'' to sponsor events on military bases. First, it is good to sponsor military events on military bases. Lots of organizations, lots of companies, lots of corporations sponsor events on military bases. In this case, although the responsible education advisor was not consulted, the commanding officer of the base was consulted and gave his approval. Yet as the CIR article showed, military officials have welcomed the university onto their bases. They welcomed them because they were honoring those who serve-- remarkable. Phoenix didn't navigate all the correct bureaucratic channels. In any case, as Defense acknowledges, ``the University of Phoenix has responded to these infractions with appropriate corrective action at this time.'' So as minor as these offenses may have been and technical in nature, they have taken the corrective action, but still a Senator wants them punished. But political general Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who is leading the charge against for-profits in the Senate, nonetheless commanded the Pentagon to ``bar the company from further access to servicemembers.'' So the department is putting Phoenix on ``probation'' because it finds the ``scope of these previous violations'' to be ``disconcerting.'' What's really disconcerting-- According to the Wall Street Journal. --is the Obama Administration's politicization of military policy. Defense also cites ``inquiries'' by the Federal Trade Commission and California Attorney General Kamala Harris. To be clear, Phoenix hasn't been charged with wrongdoing. According to the Defense Department, 96% of the university's servicemembers successfully completed courses, a higher rate than the public Central Texas College . . . and nonprofit Liberty University. . . . In essence, the Obama Administration's military tribunal is punishing Phoenix for being a target of the political left. Yet this is the White House standard of due process, so Phoenix should be nervous. I say to my friends and colleagues, they are nervous. Last year the Education Department, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Ms. Harris mounted a coordinated campaign that drove for-profit Corinthian College out of business without ever proving misconduct. This is why I say to my colleagues that I am on the floor because clearly, without any proof of misconduct, with the power of the U.S. Senate, the Department of Education, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and Ms. Harris, they were able to drive a college out of business. And it is obvious what this is really all about. This is all about the constant attacks on for-profit colleges, which is an anathema to some. Continuing: Over the last five years, Phoenix enrollment has dropped by half to 220,000 students due largely to the left's assault on for-profit education, which has knee-capped recruiting. . . . Military tuition assistance makes up less than 1% of Phoenix's revenues. However, many servicemembers who are seeking vocational skills later pursue bachelor's and masters degrees at the university under the GI Bill. Veterans make up 20% of the university's enrollment, and many need the flexibility of Phoenix's online courses as they earn a living while going to school. Most of our veterans, because of their age, have to earn a living while going to school. The article continues: The Administration's ostensible goal is to discredit Phoenix and choke off veteran recruitment. But the casualties of its attack will be servicemembers who will now have fewer educational options and opportunities. Meantime, General Durbin has commanded the Education Department and Department of Veterans Affairs to ``take appropriate action'' against the company. Bombs away. I wish to point out that recently Senator Alexander, the chairman of the HELP Committee, Senator Flake, and I wrote a letter to Secretary Carter. I will quote from it: We strongly believe that these earned benefits and educational opportunities for our servicemembers should not be jeopardized because of political or ideological opinions of some Members of Congress regarding the types of institutions that provide postsecondary education to our troops. . . . However, it is our understanding that Ms. Bilodeau's decision-- She is the person who is the DOD's voluntary education partnership head-- and threats of termination of participation in the TA program rely on overly technical violations of the MOU. What we are saying is we want due process, and these questions that have been asked--we hope we can get an answer sooner rather than later. Because Senator Durbin wrote also to other agencies of government, we are also writing to them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter to the Secretary of Defense from Senator Alexander, Senator Flake, and me.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again, I can only point out what the Wall Street Journal said. This is Obama's for-profit stealth attack. It is being orchestrated and carried out by the Senator from Illinois, who has a well-known record of not supporting the men and women who are serving in the military by his latest opposing of the Defense authorization bill on the grounds of OCO. So the men and women who are serving in the military and those who have served with honor obviously have a lower priority for him than his vendetta against for-profit universities. I think it is shameful. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, last month the Senate Indian Affairs Committee held an oversight hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency's Gold King Mine disaster. I am very grateful that Chairman John Barrasso and Vice Chairman Jon Tester quickly made this matter a priority for their committee following the August break. The hearing focused on the harmful impacts that spill is having on Indian Country, namely the Navajo Nation, the Southern Ute Tribe, and the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. On the Navajo Nation, an estimated 1,500 farms have been damaged by the EPA and its contractors when they released a deluge of tailings- pond wastewater from the abandoned Gold King Mine. On August 5, 2015, an acidic plume of mercury, arsenic, and other metals worked its way down the Animas River in Colorado and into the San Juan River near Farmington, NM. Nobody yet knows for certain the total damage to crops, soil, livestock, wildlife, and water supplies that are critical sources of food for the Navajo people and also serve as economic and cultural centers. Those farmers who were able to shut down their irrigation systems watched in horror as their crops wilted. The EPA now says water quality in the San Juan River has returned to ``pre-event levels,'' but the Gold King Mine is still releasing water roughly at 600 gallons per minute. The concentrations of toxic metals may not as be as high today as it was during the initial 3 million gallon flush, but the Navajo are still waiting for EPA to demonstrate it can prevent another large release. The nation is rightfully demanding assurances that heavy rainfall won't disturb toxic substances that may have settled in the sediment of the Animas River, the San Juan River, or even Lake Powell. In August, I--along with Arizona Governor Doug Ducey--met with Navajo Nation president Russell Begaye and Navajo council speaker Lorenzo Bates in Window Rock, AZ, to discuss this matter. I can assure my colleagues that the Navajo are suffering deeply and dearly because of this spill. I have also received calls and letters from a number of concerned constituents, mayors, county supervisors, and businesses in northern Arizona who also have a stake in the health and safety of Lake Powell. They are just as alarmed as the Navajo people that the plume could endanger their livelihoods and their enjoyment of natural resources in their communities. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and the Arizona Geological Survey have been expending scarce resources to conduct water samples independent of EPA. And that has been helpful. But the Federal Government has to step up and take action that would allow all affected stakeholders, but especially tribal communities, find confidence in what the Federal Government is doing to fix the mess that it created. At last month's hearing, we received testimony from EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and others dealing with the spill, including the Navajo Nation president, Russell Begaye. We also received testimony from Doug Holtz-Eakin, a noted economist and former Director of the Congressional Budget Office. Mr. Holtz-Eakin estimated that the spill will cost the Navajo's agriculture sector roughly $41,000 a day in lost economic activity. While I am grateful that Administrator McCarthy agreed to appear before the committee, I am concerned that, under her watch, not a single Agency employee or contractor had been fired for the disaster. In her testimony, Administrator McCarthy portrayed the EPA's response to the tribes as timely, but her portrayal was directly contradicted by the testimony of the Navajo president, who noted that it took EPA 2 days to notify the tribe about the plume's threat to the tribe. It was also revealed that Administrator McCarthy did not directly contact President Begaye for about 5 days after the spill. The committee also received testimony that EPA had not quickly and routinely shared water monitory data with the tribes. All of this shatters any notion that EPA has honored its government-to-government responsibility to the nation. The Gold King Mine spill was a series of failures by EPA that compounded, and the Navajo are paying the price. I will continue to push for increased congressional oversight into this matter.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, for the Committee on Armed Services I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, as we speak--as I am speaking on the floor of the Senate--in an act of stunning partisan politics, President Obama, the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces, has decided he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act. He is choosing to hold our military hostage for a domestic political agenda, and he is doing so at a time when the crises we face around the world have never been greater, when U.S. leadership has never been weaker, and when our men and women in uniform need vital resources to defend and secure the Nation. As I said, in an act of stunning partisan politics, President Obama, the Commander in Chief, has decided he will veto the national defense authorization bill, and he is right now in the act of doing so--holding our military hostage for his domestic political agenda. I have been in the Senate and the House for a long time. I have never seen an act of blatant partisanship with disregard for the men and women who are serving in the military than what the President is doing as we speak. For 53 years, Congress has fulfilled its constitutional duty to provide for the common defense by passing the National Defense Authorization Act. For 53 consecutive years, both bodies have passed, and the President has signed into law, the National Defense Authorization Act. In all my years, I have never witnessed anything so misguided, cynical, and downright dangerous as vetoing the Defense authorization for reasons that have nothing to do with defense--nothing to do with defense. Presidents throughout history--Republicans and Democrats alike--have recognized the importance of this bill to our national defense. In the more than 50 years since Congress has passed an NDAA, a National Defense Authorization Act, the President of the United States has only vetoed the act four times. In each case, the President objected to an actual provision in the bill, and each time the Congress was able to find a compromise that earned the President's signature. Let's be clear. The President's veto of this year's bill is not over any of its policies, it is over politics. In the President's case, politics has taken precedence over policies, and when we are talking about the lives of the men and women who are serving this Nation in uniform--disgraceful. For the first time in history, the Commander in Chief will sacrifice national security for his larger domestic political agenda. This veto will not resolve the spending debate; it will not stop sequestration. That is something that can only be done through the appropriations process, not a defense authorization bill. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have answered the call to protect our Nation. They want and need support. They don't care what budget category that support comes from. I wish to point out we authorized exactly the amount of money the President requested. This is a Washington game. All the men and women who are serving in the military care about is that their mission is fully resourced. With this veto, their mission will not be fully resourced. We will put their lives in greater danger because of this political game of the President--holding the military men and women hostage for his agenda to fund the IRS and the EPA. The legislation the President vetoed today authorizes the overall amount for defense that he requested, every single dollar of it. By making clear that he will ``not fix defense without fixing non- defense spending,'' the President of the United States puts defense and the men and women in the military on the same level as the IRS. The President is using our military--using our military--as leverage to fight a battle that the Defense authorization bill cannot accomplish. At a time of mounting threats around the world, it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful the President would refuse to authorize for our troops the resources they need to prepare for and engage in vital missions around the world and that deliver some of the most significant reforms to the Pentagon in more than 30 years. By vetoing this legislation, the Defense authorization bill, let's be clear what the President is saying no to. He is saying no to pay increases and more than 30 types of bonuses and special pays for servicemembers, saying no to more portability of military health plans and greater access to urgent care facilities for troops and their families, saying no to enhanced protection against military sexual assault, saying no to significant reforms to a 70-year-old military retirement system that would extend retirement benefits to over 80 percent of servicemembers, saying no to the most sweeping reforms to our defense acquisition system in nearly 30 years, saying no to a ban on torture once and for all, saying no to $300 million in lethal assistance for the Ukranians to defend themselves against Russian aggression, and saying no to countless other important provisions that are greatly needed to combat the growing threats we see around the world today. Perhaps, most importantly, the President of the United States is refusing to sign a bill at a time when--as our top military commanders and national security experts have testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee--the world has not seen greater turmoil since the end of World War II. So, my friends, here is the context. Thanks to the President's failed policies, the results of leading from behind, the results of a policy of ``Don't do stupid stuff,'' we now see a world in a state of turmoil--the likes of which we have not seen since the end of World War II. On a bipartisan basis, we passed a defense authorization bill that has monumental consequences to the future security of this Nation, the present security of this Nation, and the welfare and ability of the men and women who are serving this Nation and their ability to defend this Nation, and the President--because he wants an increase in domestic spending, has vetoed it. Never have I seen such irresponsibility on the part of a Commander in Chief. There have been Presidents I have disagreed with. There have been Presidents I have had spirited debates with--but never ever in history has there been a President of the United States who abrogated his responsibilities, his constitutional responsibilities, as Commander in Chief. I say shame on him today, and this is a shameful day. The House will vote to override this veto on November 5. I strongly urge my colleagues to reverse this dangerous action and put the interests of our military and national security ahead of politics. Our men and women serving around the world, many still in harm's way, deserve nothing less. I spend a lot of time with the men and women who are serving in the military, including members of my own family, and they are not uninformed. They are very intelligent. They watch what we do--we, their elected representatives. Their voters trust us to defend them, care for them, to give them the weapons they need, the benefits they need, and the care they need when the wounded come back. They rely on us. They are going to see, as we watch Vladimir Putin on the march, as we watch the success of ISIS, as we watch Ukraine being dismembered, as we watch China commit more aggression in the South China Sea and fill in islands--and now? Now this Commander in Chief decides that this is a time to veto an authorization bill because he doesn't think there is enough domestic spending. It is a sad day, a very sad day. It is a sad day for America but most of all it is a very sad day for the men and women with whom we entrust our very lives and our security. It is a sad day. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I am about to object. Let's get going here.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before the Senator leaves the floor, I wish to thank him on a well-planned, well-thought-out, and very convincing presentation, and an argument that, frankly, I can add very little to. So I will make my remarks very brief. I thank the Senator from Maine for highlighting the absolute importance of the passage of this legislation. And, I might add, he is one of the most serious and hard-working members of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well. I won't go any further. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 754. I thank my colleagues, Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Feinstein, for their ongoing leadership. In the short 2 months since this bill was last on the Senate floor, the need for action on information sharing has only increased. It is not for a lack of trying. We have continuously failed to make progress on this bill. As the Senator from Maine just made clear, that must change. Enacting legislation to confront the accumulating dangers of cyber threats must be among the highest national security priorities of the Congress. The need for congressional action, in my view, is also enhanced by the administration's inability to develop the policies and framework necessary to deter our adversaries in cyberspace. Earlier this week we learned just how ineffective the administration has been in addressing our cyber challenges. Within days of reaching an agreement to curb the stealing of information for economic gain, China--China--repeatedly, reportedly, continues its well-coordinated efforts to steal designs of our critical weapons systems and to wage economic espionage against U.S. companies. It is not a surprise, but it serves as yet another sad chapter in this administration's inability to address the cyber threats. I guess in the last couple of days it has been made known that some hacker hacked into the information of both the Director of the CIA and the chairman of the homeland security committee. That is interesting. As the President's failed China agreement clearly demonstrates, our response to cyber attacks has been tepid at best and nonexistent at worst. Unless and until the President uses the authority he has to defer, deter, defend, and respond to the growing number in severity of cyber threats, we will risk not just more of the same but embolden adversaries in terrorist organizations that will continuously pursue more severe and destructive attacks. Addressing our cyber vulnerabilities must be a national security priority. Just this week, Admiral Rogers, the head of Cyber Command, reiterated, ``It's only a matter of time before someone uses cyber as a tool to do damage to critical infrastructure.'' My colleagues don't have to agree with the Senator from Maine or me or anybody else, but shouldn't we listen to Admiral Rogers, the head of Cyber Command, probably the most knowledgeable person or one of the most knowledgeable who said, ``It is only a matter of time before someone uses cyber as a tool to do damage to critical infrastructure.'' According to the recently retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, our military enjoys ``a significant military advantage'' in every domain except for one--cyber space. As General Dempsey said, cyber ``is a level playing field. And that makes this chairman very uncomfortable.'' I will tell you, it makes this chairman very uncomfortable as well. Efforts are under way to begin addressing some of our strategic shortfalls in cyber space, including the training of a 6,200-person cyber force. However, these efforts will be meaningless unless we make the tough policy decisions to establish meaningful cyber deterrence. The President must take steps now to demonstrate to our adversaries that the United States takes cyber attacks seriously and is prepared to respond. This legislation is one piece of that overall deterrence strategy, and it is long past time that Congress move forward on information sharing legislation. We have been debating similar cyber legislation since at least 2012. I am glad this body has come a long way since that time in recognizing that government mandates on the private sector, which operates the majority of our country's critical infrastructure, will do more harm than good in cyber space. The voluntary framework in this legislation properly defines the role of the private sector and the role of the government in sharing threat information, defending networks, and deterring cyber attacks. At the same time, it is unfortunate that it has taken over 3 years to advance this commonsense legislation. The threats we face in cyber space are real and imminent, as well as quickly evolving. All aspects of the Federal Government, including this body, must commit to more quickly identifying, enacting, and executing solutions to counter cyber threats. If we do not, we will lose in cyber space. As chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I consider cyber security one of the committee's top priorities. That is why the National Defense Authorization Act provides a number of critical authorities to ensure that the Department of Defense can develop the capabilities it needs to deter aggression, defend our national security interests, and when called upon, defeat our adversaries in cyber space. I find it unacceptable that the President has signaled his intent to veto this legislation that, among other key Department of Defense priorities, authorizes military cyber operations and dramatically reforms the broken acquisition system that has inhibited the development and delivery of key cyber capabilities. More specifically, the National Defense Authorization Act extends liability protections to Department of Defense contractors who report on cyber incidents or penetrations, and it authorizes the Secretary of Defense to develop, prepare, coordinate and, when authorized by the President, conduct a military cyber operation in response to malicious cyber activity carried out against the United States or a U.S. person by a foreign power. The NDAA authorizes $200 million for the Secretary of Defense to assess the cyber vulnerabilities of every major DOD weapons system. Finally, Congress required the President to submit an integrated policy to deter adversaries in cyber space in the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. I tell my colleagues that we are still waiting on that policy. This year's NDAA includes funding restrictions that will remain in place until it is delivered. As we dither, our Nation grows more vulnerable, our privacy and security are at greater risk, and our adversaries are further emboldened. The stakes are high, and it is essential that we pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act without further delay. Let me also mention in closing that probably the most disturbing comment I have heard in a long time on this issue in this challenge is when Admiral Rogers said that our biggest challenge is we don't know what we don't know. We don't know what the penetrations have been, what the attacks have been, whether they have succeeded or not, where they are in this whole realm of cyber and information at all levels. When the person we placed in charge of cyber security says we don't know what we don't know, my friends, that is a very serious situation. I want to congratulate again both the managers of the bill in their coordination and their cooperation in this bipartisan effort. I yield the floor.